|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 29, 2014 16:47:43 GMT -5
Nick Cafardo ?@nickcafardo 5m Red Sox have never received a figure from the Jon Lester side on what it would have taken to sign him according to a source. It begins. T-minus 60 hours to discussion of Jon Lester's cell phone habits, religious beliefs, marital status, and/or affinity for chicken is on page C1 of the Globe. Don't forget his affinity for Country music. Cafardo is obviously a mouth piece for Red Sox ownership. We wouldn't still be talking about Lester and his contract if the Red Sox management made a legitimate attempt to sign him. Cafardo and Red Sox ownership should work on some new talking points as ones such as that one are down right embarassing.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 29, 2014 16:56:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2014 17:13:10 GMT -5
It begins. T-minus 60 hours to discussion of Jon Lester's cell phone habits, religious beliefs, marital status, and/or affinity for chicken is on page C1 of the Globe. Don't forget his affinity for Country music. Cafardo is obviously a mouth piece for Red Sox ownership. We wouldn't still be talking about Lester and his contract if the Red Sox management made a legitimate attempt to sign him. Cafardo and Red Sox ownership should work on some new talking points as ones such as that one are down right embarassing. And how much the Red Sox have to offer to outbid the Rangers because of tax rates.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2014 17:14:38 GMT -5
I don't even understand what formal offer means. Do they have to write it up like an offer on a house?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 29, 2014 19:53:57 GMT -5
Now there is a pissing contest about who said what. linkI believe the chances of seeing him, again, in a Red Sox uniform this year or next has plummeted. I root for the letters on the front of the jersey as opposed to the back, but I always like this guy.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 29, 2014 20:08:49 GMT -5
The Red Sox public relations/propaganda machine would be better served to shut it down trying to spin their tales as it relates to the Lester negotiations. It makes them look even worse given that it appears pretty apparent that they had no intent to offer Lester even close to market rates to re-sign him.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2014 20:35:12 GMT -5
Now there is a pissing contest about who said what. linkI believe the chances of seeing him, again, in a Red Sox uniform this year or next has plummeted. I root for the letters on the front of the jersey as opposed to the back, but I always like this guy. Makes me think more that a deal is already made a deal that will be signed after a trade and the season is over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2014 20:43:56 GMT -5
I don't even understand what formal offer means. Do they have to write it up like an offer on a house? Actually. Yes. The team draws up a written offer. Acceptance occurs by means of signature. Everything is conditioned upon a few procedural issues, including passing a medical exam.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2014 20:47:05 GMT -5
I don't even understand what formal offer means. Do they have to write it up like an offer on a house? Actually. Yes. The team draws up a written offer. Acceptance occurs by means of signature. Everything is conditioned upon a few procedural issues, including passing a medical exam. Why bother before informal offers are agreed upon?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2014 20:53:55 GMT -5
Actually. Yes. The team draws up a written offer. Acceptance occurs by means of signature. Everything is conditioned upon a few procedural issues, including passing a medical exam. Why bother before informal offers are agreed upon? You likely wouldn't, which is why the statement "no formal offer was ever made" is rather meaningless. If verbal negotiations have indicated a large gap then a written offer might never end up being made. It doesn't mean the team wasn't interested, simply that the terms they were offering were already known to be terms that would be rejected. The issue of offer shopping might also be a concern when you're dealing with an agent like Boras.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 30, 2014 7:56:21 GMT -5
That sounds illegal and very unethical. When you say "illegal", do you mean opposed to MLB collusion practices or are you talking about actual laws?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 30, 2014 8:56:16 GMT -5
That sounds illegal and very unethical. When you say "illegal", do you mean opposed to MLB collusion practices or are you talking about actual laws? I say "sounds" because I don't know the actual rules, but I was referring to MLB rules, I believe this would be considered tampering.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 30, 2014 8:58:22 GMT -5
When you say "illegal", do you mean opposed to MLB collusion practices or are you talking about actual laws? I say "sounds" because I don't know the actual rules, but I was referring to MLB rules, I believe this would be considered tampering. I believe it would be genius.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 30, 2014 9:05:55 GMT -5
I say "sounds" because I don't know the actual rules, but I was referring to MLB rules, I believe this would be considered tampering. I believe it would be genius. Sorry tough guy.... Like I said I don't know what the exact rules are but it is a safe assumption you can't have a contract agreement with one team while you play for another. If you are going to suggest this is what is happening here you shouldn't be so sensitive when you are called on out it..
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 30, 2014 9:07:55 GMT -5
I believe it would be genius. Sorry tough guy.... Like I said I don't know what the exact rules are but it is a safe assumption you can't have a contract agreement with one team while you play for another. If you are going to suggest this is what is happening here you shouldn't be so sensitive when you are called on out it.. I'm not sensitive at all. It's not binding. The team that trades for him is going to know that they aren't trading for special negotiating rights as soon as they talk to Lester's agents, because they have said he's 100% going to free agency if he's traded. So I'm not sure how unethical it is. Who is getting screwed?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 30, 2014 9:22:19 GMT -5
Sorry tough guy.... Like I said I don't know what the exact rules are but it is a safe assumption you can't have a contract agreement with one team while you play for another. If you are going to suggest this is what is happening here you shouldn't be so sensitive when you are called on out it.. I'm not sensitive at all. It's not binding. The team that trades for him is going to know that they aren't trading for special negotiating rights as soon as they talk to Lester's agents, because they have said he's 100% going to free agency if he's traded. So I'm not sure how unethical it is. Who is getting screwed? When you're unprovoked and your are calling people genius on an anonymous message board you are coming off as something, maybe not sensitive, but it is evident it is coming off personal. I typically would respond to anyone on this board differently than I would a stranger in real life. What you are saying is obviously some attempt at an insult. Nonetheless I know this chatter doesn't belong here and I typically don't entertain the throw down forums so I'll move on. It does not matter if it is not binding or not, it would be highly unethical. If found our Red Sox would be penalized and Lester's agent would probably lose his MLB certification. Regardless on what we think Lester will do between now and free agency the team he was traded for would have exclusive negotiation rights.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 30, 2014 9:25:13 GMT -5
I'm not sensitive at all. It's not binding. The team that trades for him is going to know that they aren't trading for special negotiating rights as soon as they talk to Lester's agents, because they have said he's 100% going to free agency if he's traded. So I'm not sure how unethical it is. Who is getting screwed? When you're unprovoked and your are calling people genius on an anonymous message board you are coming off as something, maybe not sensitive, but it is evident it is coming off personal. I typically would respond to anyone on this board differently than I would a stranger in real life. What you are saying is obviously some attempt at an insult. Nonetheless I know this chatter doesn't belong here and I typically don't entertain the throw down forums so I'll move on. It does not matter if it is not binding or not, it would be highly unethical. If found our Red Sox would be penalized and Lester's agent would probably lose his MLB certification. Regardless on what we think Lester will do between now and free agency the team he was traded for would have exclusive negotiation rights. That's not what I meant it all. I wasn't being sarcastic and calling you genius. I was calling the move genius. I believe it would be a genius move. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 30, 2014 9:28:39 GMT -5
When you're unprovoked and your are calling people genius on an anonymous message board you are coming off as something, maybe not sensitive, but it is evident it is coming off personal. I typically would respond to anyone on this board differently than I would a stranger in real life. What you are saying is obviously some attempt at an insult. Nonetheless I know this chatter doesn't belong here and I typically don't entertain the throw down forums so I'll move on. It does not matter if it is not binding or not, it would be highly unethical. If found our Red Sox would be penalized and Lester's agent would probably lose his MLB certification. Regardless on what we think Lester will do between now and free agency the team he was traded for would have exclusive negotiation rights. That's not what I meant it all. I wasn't being sarcastic and calling you genius. I was calling the move genius. I believe it would be a genius move. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Oh, ok... I see how that should have read. Kind of like the old Guinness commercials. Sorry for misunderstanding. Yes it would obviously be beneficial for the Red Sox, but still against the rules. One report on Lester said that even if traded the Red Sox would only have to come close to other offers to sign him. Maybe that is about as close as you can get before it is considered tampering.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 30, 2014 9:29:48 GMT -5
According to Jon Heyman (on the radio), the Red Sox floated an offer of 5/$100mm to Lester's camp and was rejected. Haven't heard this before and don't know when the offer was made, if at all.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Jul 30, 2014 9:33:03 GMT -5
It does not matter if it is not binding or not, it would be highly unethical. If found our Red Sox would be penalized and Lester's agent would probably lose his MLB certification. Regardless on what we think Lester will do between now and free agency the team he was traded for would have exclusive negotiation rights. If I today own the rights to a player and he tells me he is going to free agency regardless than I still have a right to ask him or negotiate the price it would cost ME compared to the other teams to sign him this fall. I also have the right to ask if this would still be true if I traded him for the rest of the season if that price or deal would still hold. Nothing illegal in that answers so I don't see any problem here. IF another team trades for him, he than can talk to them IF they desire for a price or early sign while under their control. The only time ethical would come into it is AFTER the trade was made and they still tried to talk to him before free agency. If he commits to a price Publicly after hitting free agency then later turns it down that might border on you ethics claims but that is all.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Jul 30, 2014 9:39:43 GMT -5
Fully expect Lester to be signed in the offseason and return to Boston on a contract for market value. The way negotiations have played out seems to point decisively in this direction. Finding Jon a home in a market that stands no chance to re-sign him (Pittsburgh, Oakland, etc) only improves the likelihood of that outcome.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 30, 2014 9:48:46 GMT -5
Fully expect Lester to be signed in the offseason and return to Boston on a contract for market value. The way negotiations have played out seems to point decisively in this direction. Finding Jon a home in a market that stands no chance to re-sign him (Pittsburgh, Oakland, etc) only improves the likelihood of that outcome. Other than wishful thinking, how do you come to this conclusion? Seems to me that the Sox are nowhere near market value with Lester. Why haven't the Red Sox offered him anywhere near market value yet? What's the point of this?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 30, 2014 9:49:35 GMT -5
Deep down I do not believe Lester's desire to return to Boston at a hometown discount is sincere. If he truly wants to return and is willing to take less money, I think he could make this happen rather quickly. Something like what Tek did when Boras and Theo dragged negotiations past Christmas. Bottom line, I imagine Lester's hometown discount is not much of a discount. That's possible. It's also possible that Lester just isn't good at figuring out his market value and his agent has no interest in giving him an honest assessment before he hits free agency. MLB players are not famous for their understanding of advanced stats.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 30, 2014 9:51:55 GMT -5
Fully expect Lester to be signed in the offseason and return to Boston on a contract for market value. The way negotiations have played out seems to point decisively in this direction. Finding Jon a home in a market that stands no chance to re-sign him (Pittsburgh, Oakland, etc) only improves the likelihood of that outcome. Other than wishful thinking, how do you come to this conclusion? Seems to me that the Sox are nowhere near market value with Lester. Why haven't the Red Sox offered him anywhere near market value yet? What's the point of this? Maybe because if they were willing to pay market value, they may as well trade him first? Or maybe because market value is insanely stupid?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 30, 2014 9:55:12 GMT -5
Fully expect Lester to be signed in the offseason and return to Boston on a contract for market value. The way negotiations have played out seems to point decisively in this direction. Finding Jon a home in a market that stands no chance to re-sign him (Pittsburgh, Oakland, etc) only improves the likelihood of that outcome. I love this idea. I think however it is as plausible as Obama's birth certificate being fake. I think, sadly, they're walking away without a real offer like they did with Ellsbury, Pedro, Lowe, Bay, Papelbon and most of the other high profile free agents who reached the open market. That's the predominant evidence chain in the vast bulk of this ownership group's negotiations. We all know the caveats who signed after the exclusive period (Lowell, Varitek). Both took discounts. Not saying Lester is a max money guy, but I think the trade and then buy back one of their own players, a 31 year old pitcher, at slight reduction from the full price dictated by the market - which includes the Yankees and some crazy owners - doesn't fit with John Henry's, or the front office's, organizational philosophy. Then again, for all you who want to cling to it, Obama was born in Hawaii but has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut, so, as with winning PowerBall numbers and shark attacks, there's always a less than 1% chance.
|
|